Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Alphabet shareholders reject diversity proposal backed by employees

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 90 posts

Re: Alphabet shareholders reject diversity proposal backed by employees

#51

Post by losteric »

dokein wrote: post #5

To what extent should diversity be the responsibility of companies? I would argue the responsibility is in proportion to added-discrimination, so to speak (kind of like your profit should be in proportion to your added value). So, as an example, if 90% of your applicants are male and 10% are female, presuming quality is randomly distributed, the default assumption is that the company ends up with 90% male employees a…

You're right, equal representation simply requires that Google's new hires reflect the current underlying labor market demographics. Attempting to skew that distribution in either direction is discrimination.

However, I would like to see tech companies provide more merit-based scholarship and mentorship opportunities for underrepresented demographics... the price of college and weak minority support networks contribute to the systemic biases in our industry.

Re: Alphabet shareholders reject diversity proposal backed by employees

#52

Post by diminoten »

adamnemecek wrote: post #47
diminoten wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At no point in that article does it mention hiring unqualified candidates. To be a bit blunter, there are plenty of great engineers out there, and some of them happen to not be white/Asian. I don't know if what YouTube did was right or wrong, but pretending like only white/Asian people can be good at computers is quite insane.

If you reject candidates based on race, the probability of that having happened is very high.

Sorry, but that's simply not true. There are plenty of qualified candidates, all of whom can do any given engineering job.

The probability of hiring an under qualified candidate is entirely unaffected by refusing to interview white/Asian people.

Edit: Replying here, since I'm now rate limited...

I can see how you might think you're not selecting the "most qualified candidate" by limiting who you interview based on diversity criteria, if you believed hiring was very precise, but in my experience, hiring is much fuzzier than that.

"The most qualified candidate" is not an objective number you reach after plugging values into a formula (please, show me the formula that can accurately calculate "fit"), and saying there is a singular objective "most qualified candidate" isn't actually how the hiring process works.

Further, if you identify a competitive disadvantage among your teams related to diversity, hiring someone who doesn't diversify your team (though is otherwise qualified) may actually hurt your ability to meet team goals and deliver (in this case) quality software. That "most qualified candidate" may not be qualified to provide the viewpoints you need for you team to thrive.

Re: Alphabet shareholders reject diversity proposal backed by employees

#53

Post by ihsw2 »

peteretep wrote: post #13
malvosenior wrote: post #3

I wish the article had more details on why the propositions were rejected. It makes sense though, Alphabet is there to make money not foster an ultra political working environment. After the Damore incident, I wouldn't consider working there, but this does offer some hope to those who aren't far-left leaning.

I wonder how you came to the determination that those who support equality are far left, rather than just left?

There is a difference between the groups that advocate for generous social welfare programs and steep progressive taxation, and the groups that advocate for radical societal shifts justified by cultural/class Marxism.

The former are left and the latter are far left, and (more to the point) the former are representative of the general population while the latter a dangerous minority within an already-dangerous minority.

Re: Alphabet shareholders reject diversity proposal backed by employees

#54

Post by manfredo »

mseebach wrote: post #18
dokein wrote: post #5

To what extent should diversity be the responsibility of companies? I would argue the responsibility is in proportion to added-discrimination, so to speak (kind of like your profit should be in proportion to your added value). So, as an example, if 90% of your applicants are male and 10% are female, presuming quality is randomly distributed, the default assumption is that the company ends up with 90% male employees a…

Because "society" is made up of (among others) companies, and Google is a large company. The way things change in a society is when the members of society start to change them. If a company with the weight and power of Google feel something is wrong and isn't doing their damnedest to try to fix it, then it won't change. Now, from the linked piece, it's unclear exactly what has been proposed, so I'm not offering an op…

The thing is, though, all companies are drawing from the same talent pool. Google hiring an above average number of diverse applicants doesn't raise the percentage of diverse tech workers. Those diverse tech workers came from somewhere. Google's act of hiring them in turn reduced another company's pool of diverse workers. Or if they came from a university, it reduces the number of diverse candidates that other companies can pick from.

Ultimately the total diversity of tech is dictated by the individual decisions of people when they choose their field.

Re: Alphabet shareholders reject diversity proposal backed by employees

#56

Post by daveFNbuck »

adamnemecek wrote: post #36
ddppee wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is that people aren't hired based solely on skill. There is some degree of bias that needs to be addressed.

This bias goes well beyond racial and gender diversity. Why are these the only types of diversity that are ever discussed. And pls don’t misunderstand this argument, but could the same argument not be used for say diversity of skill? Like how come a company can reject me due to lack of skill?

> And pls don’t misunderstand this argument, but could the same argument not be used for say diversity of skill? Like how come a company can reject me due to lack of skill?

The argument is that it's unfair and harmful to the individual, your company, and society to not hire someone because their skin is too dark. Do you think that's true of not hiring someone who isn't qualified?

Re: Alphabet shareholders reject diversity proposal backed by employees

#57

Post by hyperbovine »

ihsw2 wrote: post #44
lainga wrote: post #34

If we aren't going to mark this as dupe, I'll repeat my comment from the thread yesterday: Per the article, backed by "several hundred employees" out of a 2017 Alphabet headcount of 80,110.

Popularity is not a measure of validity.

Sure it is, when the rulemaking procedure is by majority vote.

Re: Alphabet shareholders reject diversity proposal backed by employees

#58

Post by jkahrs595 »

adamnemecek wrote: post #36
ddppee wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is that people aren't hired based solely on skill. There is some degree of bias that needs to be addressed.

This bias goes well beyond racial and gender diversity. Why are these the only types of diversity that are ever discussed. And pls don’t misunderstand this argument, but could the same argument not be used for say diversity of skill? Like how come a company can reject me due to lack of skill?

Is this sarcasm?

Re: Alphabet shareholders reject diversity proposal backed by employees

#59

Post by adamnemecek »

jkahrs595 wrote: post #58
adamnemecek wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This bias goes well beyond racial and gender diversity. Why are these the only types of diversity that are ever discussed. And pls don’t misunderstand this argument, but could the same argument not be used for say diversity of skill? Like how come a company can reject me due to lack of skill?

Is this sarcasm?

It's an argument ad absurdum.

Re: Alphabet shareholders reject diversity proposal backed by employees

#60

Post by stormbrew »

dokein wrote: post #37
stormbrew wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you have a fever because of a bacterial pneumonia, antibiotics are much better than Tylenol. You also don't go "but don't have tylenol to break the fever because there's a root cause too," because an unchecked fever is itself damaging to the brain. And you especially don't do that if the root cause is unknown, unclear, or will take a long time or is impossible to cure. The root causes here are complex and will t…

I know this is an aside, but speaking as a physician the treatment of fever doesn't actually do much of anything [1]. The rates of certain injuries e.g. febrile seizures are the same with or without Tylenol [2]. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1488736/ , https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12076499/ [2] http://adc.bmj.com/content/88/7/641

That's definitely interesting! I didn't know that.

Still, I think the point is still valid that symptoms are still often worth treating, even if you are also working on the root cause, right?

Post reply on HN